WHAT CONSTITUTES GOOD SCIENCE?
by Jay Lehr and Tom Harris, ©2018
(Oct. 12, 2018) — United Nations global warming alarmists are at it again. On Monday, UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) bureaucrats sat stone-faced on television in South Korea predicting that the planet would all but perish in ten years if carbon dioxide (CO2) is allowed to continue to rise in the Earth’s atmosphere. Their solution, as presented in the IPCC’s flawed report, “Global Warming of 1.5 °C” (SR15), was all too familiar: to avert catastrophe we must greatly reduce our use of fossil fuels in favor of alternative energy sources such as wind and solar.
What is different this time, however, is that three days earlier, and a half a world away, a competing and more realistic report was issued in the United States. Entitled “Summary for Policymakers – Climate Change Reconsidered II: Fossil Fuels,” it was released by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), an international network of climate scientists sponsored by three nonprofit organizations: the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), and The Heartland Institute. The new NIPCC report is a result of the contribution of 117 scientists, economists, and other experts who refute the IPCC’s claim that the impacts of climate change on human wellbeing and the natural environment justify dramatic reductions in fossil fuels use. Indeed, the NIPCC report concludes the exact opposite of the IPCC:
“Fossil fuels have benefited humanity by making possible the prosperity that occurred since the first Industrial Revolution….Fossil fuels powered the technologies that reduced the environmental impact of a growing human population… Nearly all the impacts of fossil fuel use on human well-being are net positive (benefits minus costs) or are simply unknown.”
In the past 20 years the climate scare has plagued every nation, wasting billions of dollars attempting the impossible, namely, to control the temperature of our planet. It has been driven by a combination of inestimable arrogance and ignorance coupled with a desire to place the government in charge of virtually all activities in our societies. Used properly, the new NIPCC report will help finally defeat what Canadian historical climatologist Dr. Tim Ball calls, “The greatest deception in history.”
In contrast to the IPCC’s SR15 report, the NIPCC’s Climate Change Reconsidered II: Fossil Fuels (CCR II – Fossil Fuels) report is readable by a non-scientific audience. It addresses every aspect of our climate from sea level to hurricanes, the fallacy of climate models, the physics that controls weather, the absurdity of thinking the Earth can run on either wind or solar energy, and the selective junk science used by alarmists to fool the public.
One of the main reasons that IPCC reports have such little credibility is that they virtually ignore the scientific method of testing hypotheses. Instead, all efforts are directed toward proving a political position rather than having an unbiased search for the truth. The Summary for Policymakers (SPM) of CCR II: Fossil Fuels concludes:
“IPCC and its national counterparts have not conducted proper cost-benefit analyses of fossil fuels, global warming, or regulations designed to force a transition away from fossil fuels, nor are they likely to do so given their political agendas.”
The most important part of the SPM for CCR II – Fossil Fuels is the table entitled “Impact of fossil fuels on human well-being.” It is a comprehensive assemblage of the issues promoted by climate change alarmists accompanied by a brief summary of the fallacy of each. Besides six pages of references from leading authorities at the report’s conclusion, references are also provided in the table to the applicable sections of the underlying science report to be released in December 2018 so readers will soon be able to see for themselves the supporting evidence for the new report’s conclusions. Here are some examples drawn from the table:
DROUGHT – No net impact – There has been no increase in the frequency or intensity of drought in the modern era. Rising CO2 lets plants use water more efficiently, helping them overcome stressful conditions imposed by droughts. Chapter references 2.7, 5.3
ECONOMIC GROWTH – Benefit – Affordable and reliable energy is positively correlated with economic growth rates everywhere in the world. Fossil fuels produced the three industrial revolutions that made possible the unprecedented global rise in human prosperity. Chapter references 3, 4.1, 5.2, 7.1, 7.2, 8.1, 8.2
HEAT RELATED MORTALITY – Beneficial – Extreme cold kills more people than extreme heat, so a warmer world would see a net decrease in temperature related mortality in virtually all parts of the world, even those with tropical climates. Chapter reference 4.2
SEA LEVEL RISE – No net impact – There has been no increase in the rate of increase in global average sea level in the modern era, and therefore no reason to expect any economic damages to result from it. Local sea levels change in response to factors other than climate. Chapter references 2.7, 8.2
CCR II: Fossil Fuels explains that the social benefits of coal, oil, and natural gas vastly exceed the costs. The last thing we should be doing is turning off fossil fuels, our most abundant, least expensive energy sources, in a futile attempt to control the planet’s climate.
Dr. Jay Lehr is the Science Director of The Heartland Institute which is based in Arlington Heights, Illinois. Tom Harris is Executive Director of the Ottawa, Canada-based International Climate Science Coalition and is also a policy advisor to Heartland.
Sharon Rondeau has operated The Post & Email since April 2010, focusing on the Obama birth certificate investigation and other government corruption news. She has reported prolifically on constitutional violations within Tennessee’s prison and judicial systems.